What Disgusts Consumers in the Hospitality Industry: The Consumer Reaction to Environmental Contamination Model

Abstract

The consumer reaction to environmental contamination model explains how consumers’ perceptions about cleanliness influence their behavior in hospitality and tourism settings. Research literature supports the model that proposes the influence of several variables on consumers’ emotional reaction of disgust when they experience some type of personal contact with the contamination. These variables include cultural beliefs, risk perception, knowledge about cleanliness and health, familiarity with the specific type of contamination, prior experience with an illness caused by unclean environmental conditions, location or setting, type of personal contact, and demographics. These variables may affect the level of disgust generated by possible contact with the environmental contamination with some part of the body. Examples from hospitality and tourism settings are offered, but the model may also be useful in other environmental contexts. More research is needed to better understand consumers’ reactions to contamination in hospitality and tourism environments.

Keywords

cleanliness cleaning consumers disgust environmental contamination

Introduction

Research strongly supports the finding that consumers’ perceptions about cleanliness strongly influence their behavior in numerous settings. In hospitality and tourism, cleanliness perceptions have been shown to impact: consumers’ satisfaction and revisit intention in restaurants (Park & Almanza, 2015; Truong, Nisar, Knox, & Prabhakar, 2017; Vilnai-Yavetz & Gilboa, 2010), hotel ratings (Stringam & Gerdes, 2010; Dolnicar, 2002), security perceptions of hostels (Amblee, 2015), and even willingness to ride in taxis (Vilnai-Yavetz & Gilboa, 2010). Research has also suggested that there is a potential market segment that is willing to pay more for enhanced disinfection cleaning methods in hotels (Zemke, Neal, Shoemaker, & Kirsch, 2015).

Research has also concluded that when there are problems or issues with sanitation, outbreaks of infectious diseases have the potential to dramatically disrupt the tourism industry. Examples include the H1N1 epidemic that was found to adversely affect the hotel, restaurant, and aviation industries in Mexico (Monterrubio, 2010), and the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak that was said to have a “negatively profound effect on tourism around the world” (Pine & McKercher, 2004). Research has also found that cruise passengers would change their behavior once on the cruise when a norovirus outbreak might occur (Fisher, Almanza, Behnke, Nelson, & Neal, 2018). According to the results of this study, passengers would be likely to wash their hands twice as often, and would be most likely to avoid the buffet, fitness center, and spa (in that order) (Fisher, Almanza, Behnke, Nelson, & Neal, 2018).

Although cleanliness has been shown to be an important influence on consumer satisfaction and return intention, even more important, a lack of cleanliness may have negative health implications for consumers in at least three ways. First of all, lack of cleanliness or sanitary practices in restaurants could result in foodborne illness. Although the food supply in the United States is one of the safest in the world, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2019), approximately 48 million people still get sick with foodborne illness every year. Second, consumers may also acquire diseases when they come into contact with pathogenic (disease-causing) microorganisms on contaminated surfaces. Examples of diseases that can be spread by touch contact from and to travelers include hepatitis, norovirus, intestinal flu, and rhinovirus (Dykstra, 1990; Zemke et al., 2015). Not surprisingly, research has reported that the number one reason influencing travelers’ choice of destinations is the risk of infectious disease (Kozak, Crotts, & Law, 2007). Third, consumers may also bring home other “undesirables,” such as bed bugs, when they come into close contact with them in locations where the bed bugs are present. According to a public database of user-submitted bed bug reports in the United States and Canada, bed bugs have been a nuisance in hotels, hospitals, university residence halls, libraries, movie theaters, and other public areas (Ceglowski, 2019). Unfortunately for consumers, issues with pathogenic microorganisms in food or on surfaces that they touch, or even bed bugs, may not be evident from a general observation. In the case of bed bugs, a closer visual observation may provide evidence of a possible infestation, but microbial pathogens are not visible to the naked eye. As a result, consumers must make decisions based on what they can see—their perceptions of overall cleanliness.

Although consumer reactions to contamination or lack of cleanliness have been researched in restaurants and hotels, a model to explain their reactions in the hospitality industry context has not yet been proposed. Perceptions of overall cleanliness might be expected to vary from one individual to another based on a number of factors such as prior experience with illnesses, cultural background, and perceptions about personal risk. The purpose of this article is to offer a comprehensive model to explain consumer reactions to environmental contamination (CREC) using both hospitality literature and literature from psychology and sociology where reactions to contamination and cleanliness have also been a strong topic of research, particularly recently.

Literature Review

History of Cleanliness in the United States

The American public has been characterized today as “germophobic” and focused on “personal hygiene mania” (Flora, 2008). However, it could be said that we live, in fact, in the microorganisms’ world (Flora, 2008). It has been reported that there are 100 trillion cells in the human body, but that only 10% are actually our own cells because the rest are microorganisms (Flora, 2008). Some microorganisms are beneficial. For example, some microorganisms in our gastrointestinal system manufacture vitamin K and some B vitamins that we need and we then, quite simply, absorb into our body (Hill, 1997). Because we cannot see pathogenic bacteria and viruses in the environment, we are generally forced to make assumptions based on our risk perceptions. It has been suggested that some people are excessively preoccupied with cleaning and that inaccurate risk perceptions are at the root of this problem (Flora, 2008).

An obsession with cleaning and cleanliness has not been characteristic of the United States throughout its history. In fact, between 1750 and 1900, the practice of washing went from being poorly and infrequently done by a small segment of the population to a regular practice done by most people (Bushman & Bushman, 1988). Multiple influences fueled these changes. Although religion might be expected to be one of the strongest influences, it played less of a role in the 18th century as compared to the 19th century (Bushman & Bushman, 1988). John Wesley’s famous statement “Cleanliness is, indeed, next to godliness” was thought to be related more to neatness of appearance rather than washing or cleansing one’s body (Bushman & Bushman, 1988).

In contrast, Bushman and Bushman (1988) proposed that the importance of cleanliness actually arose from “aspirations to gentility.” Greasy or dirty clothes denoted a lower class. In comparison, the use of clean handkerchiefs was elegant and marked one as belonging to the middle class. Obvious expressions of personal hygiene were also important. For example, washing of hands was expected before meals among the middle class (Bushman & Bushman, 1988).

On the other hand, until the 18th century, the effectiveness of genteel cleaning and how it was conducted varied (Bushman & Bushman, 1988). Bushman and Bushman report that regular bathing was not routine even in the most genteel households in either America or England by 1800. “Bathing” varied from washing one’s hands and face, to cold baths, to sponge baths from a bowl or basin, and may not have even included the use of soap (Bushman & Bushman, 1988). In fact, soap was not commonly used in washing the skin until after the middle of the 19th century (Bushman & Bushman, 1988). Instead, soap was used in the 18th century for washing clothes (laundry soap), with the additional use of hard soaps by men in shaving and made-in-Paris “toilet soaps” by women for an elegant and expensive cosmetic (Bushman & Bushman, 1988).

In the latter half of the 18th century, interest in cleanliness grew, with a commitment to cleanliness growing ever stronger throughout the 19th century (Bushman & Bushman, 1988). Other reasons for cleansing that were often inaccurate persisted throughout the 19th century, including calming the nerves, promoting blood flow, keeping the skin supple, and curing rickets, vomiting, or lack of sleep problems (Bushman & Bushman, 1988). By 1850, regular washing became routine in many of the middle-class households (Bushman & Bushman, 1988) although it was not universally accepted. In fact, a proposal to install a bathroom in the White House was criticized in 1851 as an “unnecessary expense” (Bushman & Bushman, 1988).

The later expansion of the value of cleanliness to all classes was explained by Bushman and Bushman (1988) as an interlocking of social forces that gave cleanliness a powerful social importance. Cleanliness became socially powerful because it had developed into a moral ideal and therefore became a standard of judgment (Bushman & Bushman, 1988). As described in their history of cleanliness:

Dirty hands, greasy clothes, offensive odors, grime on the skin—all entered into complex judgments about the social position of the dirty person and actually about his or her moral worth. By the middle of the nineteenth century, among the middle class anyway, personal cleanliness ranked as a mark of moral superiority and dirtiness as a sign of degradation. (Bushman & Bushman, 1988, p. 1228)

Around the time of the Civil War, the use of soap for washing the body became standard among the middle class in the United States (Bushman & Bushman, 1988). With the social forces driving this culture of cleanliness, the need for products to achieve cleanliness also grew. Although much of the soap production was originally done at home, soap became a small part of the tallow industry with manufacturers such as James Gamble (a soap maker) and William Procter (a candle maker) who went into business together in Cincinnati in 1837 (Bushman & Bushman, 1988). Cleanliness became an important industry with the additional need for washstands, towels, basins, soap, brushes, tubs, and plumbing systems (Bushman & Bushman, 1988). Cleaning also became necessary for more than personal hygiene, and included housecleaning, laundry, yardwork, streets, and sewage disposal, and was thought to be fueled by culture and commerce, not nature (Bushman & Bushman, 1988).

Modern Views on Cleanliness

Flora (2008, p. 94) has stated “ever since deodorant and mouthwash entered the American marketplace in the twentieth century, standards of cleanliness have steadily ratcheted up.” For example, before 2000, hand sanitizers were likely to be found only in hospitals (Flora, 2008). By 2005, more than $67.3 million in sanitizers were sold—a 54% increase from the prior year (Flora, 2008).

Reactions to cleanliness have been more recently studied for their association with disease avoidance and the primary emotional response of disgust (Reynolds, 2013; Schaller, 2014). Disease avoidance is related to potential concerns with contamination, when an object becomes disgusting simply by coming into contact with another object that is tainted or contaminated (Reynolds, 2013). Research in the emotion of disgust has been growing rapidly. According to Rozin, Haidt, and McCauley (2016, p. 815), “If there were a stock market in emotion research, you would have been wise to put your money on disgust back in the 1970s.” A review of literature shows that “disgust” research has increased 80-fold, far ahead of “happiness” research with a 13-fold increase, and “anger” research with an 8-fold increase (Rozin et al., 2016). According to Rozin et al. (2016), most current theories agree that (1) disgust is related to a food rejection system, (2) pathogen avoidance helps to explain disgust, (3) disgust can involve a process similar to preadaption (use of something already present for a new function, and (4) the range of facial/bodily expressions, psychophysiological events, behavioral withdrawal and feeling of revulsion appear to be relatively conservative, while the elicitors (triggers) and their meanings are more plastic (changeable). In a hospitality context, this means that consumers’ reactions to an unclean hospitality environment are efforts to protect themselves against disease. In addition, this suggests that the measurement of disgust as an assessment of consumers’ reactions is appropriate. Finally, because the elicitors and their meanings are more plastic, research in settings specific to the hospitality industry is clearly useful at this time.

In summary, hospitality research has been conducted that cites the importance of cleanliness to consumers and which locations or situations in restaurants, hotels, and other areas of the hospitality industry consumers are most concerned about (what psychologists refer to as triggers). However, more research specific to hospitality settings is warranted. A model that uses psychological and cultural variables to explain the consumer reactions has not yet been proposed. The purpose of this article is to offer a comprehensive model that defines the variables that may influence consumers’ reactions to a lack of cleanliness or “environmental contamination,” particularly in hospitality and tourism environments, such as restaurants, hotels, airplanes, trains, or other locations where consumers interact with their environment.

Proposed Model

The consumer reaction to environmental contamination model or CREC (Figure 1) is proposed to help explain consumers’ reactions to lack of cleanliness. It incorporates

cultural beliefs (how do cultural norms and standards of cleanliness affect consumers’ perceptions of what is acceptable vs. what is disgusting);

risk perception (do consumers who perceive greater risk also feel more disgust from an unclean environment);

knowledge about cleanliness and health (does greater knowledge make consumers more likely to be disgusted by contamination);

familiarity with the specific type of contamination (does familiarity make one less likely to be disgusted because it is “normal,” or does it make one more disgusted because one is more aware of it in the environment);

prior experience with an illness that one believes was caused by unclean conditions in food, hotel rooms, airplanes, and so on (does this make a consumer more disgusted when they see similar environmental conditions); and

demographics (e.g., are younger/older consumers more accepting of unclean conditions or are men/women more likely to be disgusted by unclean conditions).

Figure 1.

Consumer Reaction to Environmental Contamination Model (CREC)

This model also incorporates recent research that suggests there may be differences based on the setting (e.g., there may be differences in perceptions of cleanliness relative to its location in the home vs. restaurant or among different types of restaurants), and the location of personal contact (such as heads, hands, or bare skin).

The model was developed from an extensive literature review in hospitality, psychology, and sociology literature. The model was then proposed to three sets of panel experts and revised accordingly for additions, word choices, and flow or sequence. The research literature to support the inclusion of the variables is discussed next and examples for the hospitality and tourism industry are given. Because of this researcher’s background in the foodservice industry, many of the examples are drawn from restaurants; however, other examples for hotels and travel environments are given as well.

Cultural Beliefs

Because of differences in eating habits and foods that are considered culturally appropriate, it would be important to assess cultural beliefs. Viar-Paxton and Olatunji (2016, p. 526) have suggested that “cultures do not significantly differ in disgust responses to images of common disease vectors,” but that eating habits may be different in that they are culturally determined. Their example includes that of insects, where insects may be a main source of protein for some cultures in Africa, Asia, and South America, but that they are historically viewed as disgusting in Western cultures. Insect “contamination” in foods or the environment, therefore, may provide one example to the hospitality industry of how “contamination” may be viewed differently from culture to culture. Viar-Paxton and Olatunji (2016) also note that although there may be little variation in other types of disgust elicitors among cultures, there is still considerable variability within a culture (Viar-Paxton & Olatunji, 2016). Their summary includes the statement that although the experience of disgust has been shown to be an evolutionarily derived function to avoid disease, cultural-specific practices may create a great deal of variation in responses to elicitors. Viar-Paxton and Olatunji (2016) also state that although there are several disgust measurement scales, research is lacking on validation among heterogeneous populations and cite the importance of research in disgust and how it may vary by ethnicity.

Risk Perception

Consumers’ risk and trust perceptions have also been shown to influence consumer purchasing behavior (Yu, Neal, & Sirsat, 2018), and consumer reactions in multiple service contexts (Amblee, 2015; Vilnai-Yavetz & Gilboa, 2010). For example, (millennial) consumers with a higher risk perception of foodborne illness with a particular product (fresh-cut produce) and a greater purchasing frequency were more willing to pay a higher price for food with a lower risk (Yu, Neal, & Sirsat, 2018). In addition, research has concluded that environmental cleanliness affects trust (Vilnai-Yavetz & Gilboa, 2010). More specifically, trust in taxi drivers was greater when the taxi was perceived to be clean as compared to dirty, and greater trust was perceived with regard to clean restaurants compared with dirty restaurants, with subsequent greater intentions to use that taxi or visit that restaurant in the future (Vilnai-Yavetz & Gilboa, 2010). Finally, perceptions of security also appear to be strongly related to cleanliness perceptions (Amblee, 2015). Results from this study suggest that cleanliness, and to a lesser extent, location, are the primary determinants of a hostel guest’s sense of security (Amblee, 2015).

Knowledge

Although consumers are generally not able to obtain knowledge about the microbial conditions in a restaurant kitchen, or a hotel room, or the passenger area of an airplane, research studies have shown that knowledge about cleanliness can affect consumer behavior. For example, restaurant sanitation grades and personal observations about cleanliness were shown to influence revisit intention (Kim, Ma, & Almanza, 2017; McKelvey, Wong, & Matis, 2015; Park, Almanza, Miao, Sydnor, & Jang, 2016). In fact, research on the posting of letter grade inspection scores in restaurants reported that 88% of respondents said that they considered the grades in making decisions about what restaurants to dine in (McKelvey et al., 2015). An additional study also concluded that for consumers who used the inspection scores, the majority (56% in this study) reported that it affected their dining out decisions (Kim et al., 2017). Even further, this study reported that the use of different words to describe violations changed consumers’ perceptions, highlighting the importance of inspection reports and how they are presented as an information source for consumers. Finally, in addition to inspection reports, research has also concluded that consumers use tangible sanitation conditions that they can observe from the front of the house in a restaurant (particularly restrooms and employees) to inform their perceptions about the sanitation conditions in restaurants (Park et al., 2016).

Familiarity

Rozin and Millman’s research (1987) on monozygotic and same sex dizygotic twins suggests that disgust–contamination sensitivity has substantial sibling resemblances, but there were no additional significant differences resulting from genetics (monozygotic twins) as compared with family environment (dizygotic twins). In other words, the disgust reactions to contamination were most likely the result of living in the same family environment and exposure, rather than genetics. Rozin and Millman further suggest that this is not surprising as disgust–contamination sensitivity is likely to be a culturally transmitted attitude. Crandall et al. (2011) has also cited “local culture” as a strong influence on food safety risk perceptions and attitudes, perhaps even more so than demographics. In the hospitality context, the importance of “local culture” might also imply that familiarity (with a food or environment) would be a strong influence on disgust–contamination sensitivity.

Demographics

Several research studies have suggested the influence of certain demographic variables on levels of disgust. For example, Viar-Paxton and Olatunji (2016) suggest a “robust gender effect in which women are more likely to report higher levels of disgust compared to men.” Several research studies support the influence of gender and generation on food safety perceptions (Yu et al., 2018). For example, Yu et al. (2018), determined that millennial (those born in the 1980s and 1990s) consumers believed that pathogens in fresh-cut produce were riskier than did baby boomers, and females also believed that these were riskier compared with males (Yu et al., 2018). An additional study found that millennials believed farmers’ markets had better food safety conditions than did other demographic groups (Yu, Gibson, Wright, Neal, & Sirsat, 2017).

Prior Experience

Prior experience with foodborne illness has also been suggested to influence food safety risk perceptions and attitudes. Researchers have suggested that those with either a personal, friend, or family prior experience with foodborne illness are more likely to feel a greater concern for food safety (Crandall et al., 2011) and may behave differently with regard to food when traveling (Schroeder, Pennington-Gray, & Mandala, 2018). Interestingly, one older research study (Henson, 1997) found the opposite—a significantly decreased concern—and hypothesized that it was due to an incorrect assumption that prior experience lowered one’s chances of illness in future years or a lack of awareness of the potential severity due to a previously mild case of foodborne illness.

Setting

Argo, Dahl, and Morales (2006) proposed differences in consumers’ perceptions based on the consumer shopping location and recommended that research determine the extent of these influences. For example, they proposed that consumers would have different perceptions regarding the amount of contamination they believe would occur in consumers’ handling of products in a discount store (such as Walmart) versus a high-end store (Nordstrom) versus a consignment store. Their research did find differences in purchase intention based on consumers’ perceptions about the level of contamination of a product. Similarly, in a hospitality context, research on consumers’ perceptions about the safety of food served at fairs and festivals found differences based on location (Boo, Ghiselli, & Almanza, 2000). Respondents thought that food prepared at home was the safest, followed by cafeterias and other restaurants, with the greatest chance of foodborne illness likely to occur from eating at fairs and festivals or fast food restaurants (Boo et al., 2000). More recent research about consumers’ emotional reactions to sanitations conditions also found variations, this time for the settings of casual dining, quick service, and fining dining restaurants (Park & Almanza, 2015). In particular, although no significant differences in negative emotions were found based on the type of restaurant, significant differences in the positive emotions based on the restaurant type were found (Park & Almanza, 2015).

Type of Contact

According to Haidt, McCauley, and Rozin (1994), although several early researchers including Darwin associated disgust with something revolting, primarily related to the sense of taste or the imagined taste, research has since divided disgust into several domains. They include food, animals, body products, sex, body envelope violations, death, and hygiene. Although not all of these would be relevant for the hospitality industry, research that supports the existence of multiple domains also appears to support the notion that there may be differences in reactions to “things” that disgust us. In particular, research by Argo et al. (2006) has suggested that the source of contamination may be a moderating factor in consumer perceptions of contamination. More specifically, they suggested that future research should consider whether a shopper’s perception about a salespeople’s touching of a product (folding, stocking of items) was different from their perception of another shoppers’ touching (trying on clothes) of a product and its impact on cleanliness. Using a hospitality analogy, consumers would be least concerned about a chef touching their food, might be moderately concerned about wait staff directly touching their food, and most concerned about other customers touching their food.

Location of Personal Contact

Research suggests that although consumers enjoy touching products such as clothing, they respond negatively (lower purchase intention and greater feelings of disgust in trying on the clothing) when other consumers have had contact with the products because they are perceived in some way to be contaminated (Argo et al., 2006). According to research by Argo et al. (2006), objects do not even need to appear soiled in order to be perceived as contaminated. Their experimental research revealed that the greater the intimacy of contact with the object, the greater the perception of contamination effect. Additional results were that participants’ purchase intentions were lower and feelings of disgust were greater when the product had clearly been touched, when the contact had occurred more recently, and when more people had touched the product (Argo et al., 2006). In their conclusions, they suggest that the more contact a product has with a consumer’s body, the greater is the perception of contamination, with the stronger contamination effects for products that may be eaten—the most intimate form of contact (Argo et al., 2006). Research also has suggested that when there is a disease concern (real or imagined) from contacting objects, respondents were less likely to touch them if the objects involved a more intimate contact (Ryan, Oaten, Stevenson, & Case, 2012). For example, objects that might contact the face or mouth were less likely to be touched compared with the head or hands, and were more likely to cause facial expressions of disgust. In a hospitality context, hotel guests may be more concerned about the bathroom and bed linen in their room and less concerned about the desk or chairs in the room or other areas of the hotel.

Research in hospitality settings supports the importance of the location of contact with objects. One study that divided restaurants into five dimensions found that areas of the restaurant where customers did not have close contact were less important to the customer (Park et al., 2016). For example, the exterior of the restaurant was found to have the significantly lowest mean (5.02 on a scale of one to seven with seven equal to “very important”) for cleanliness importance compared with the restroom (mean of 6.25), the dining room (6.27), the employee’s appearance and behavior (6.41), and the way the food was prepared (6.51) (Park et al., 2016). The order of these last four means also appears to suggest increasing levels of concern for certain parts of the body touching contaminated objects.

Research on airplanes also supports the consumers’ varying levels of concern with specific areas bodily contact. Greater consumer concern for cleanliness was expressed for objects that involved contact with the mouth or face, hands, or bare skin (Park & Almanza, 2018). Significant differences were found for the importance of cleanliness related to food and flight attendants (who may touch food or hand passengers’ items) (highest level of importance), versus the lavatory (next highest level) versus seating and interior areas (lowest level of importance) (Park & Almanza, 2018).

Emotional Reaction

Disgust is viewed by psychologists as a defensive emotion that helps individuals protect themselves from external threats (Park & Almanza, 2015). Disgust is thought to make people more cautious about what they eat as well as what they do, or perhaps touch, with their bodies (Park & Almanza, 2015). Viar-Paxton and Olatunji (2016) have reported that the experience of disgust is present, at least to a certain degree, in all individuals. They suggest that not all stimuli that elicit disgust are food-related, but that many of them could potentially be related to the association of the spread of disease or contamination and that this association then leads to a heightened sense of disgust with a subsequent response of avoidance. Viar-Paxton and Olatunji (2016) state that the Disgust Scale has been the most widely used measure of disgust responses in eight domains: food, animals (things that remind us of our evolution, such as “wolfing” down food directly from the bowl rather than using silverware), body products, body envelope violations (blood, mutilations), death, sex, hygiene, and sympathetic magic (perception of contamination even though no changes in physical appearance are evident). Subsequent variations include the Disgust Scale–Revised, the Disgust Emotion Scale, the Disgust Propensity and Sensitivity Scale, the Three Domains of Disgust Scale, and the Child Disgust Scale.

Research in the hospitality industry also supports the value of disgust assessment as a reaction to sanitation (Park & Almanza, 2015) as it was found to be the most strongly felt negative emotional response. On the other hand, although psychological research has focused heavily on the emotional assessment of disgust as a response to contamination, hospitality researchers may wish to consider additional types of assessments because of the service context of the hospitality industry. Measurements of customer satisfaction and return intention have frequently been used in studies, but other potential assessments might include electronic word of mouth (eWOM) behaviors, postings on social media websites, tipping behavior, or possibly even the number of customer complaints to health departments about restaurant sanitation.

Discussion

Support for the CREC model has been offered from hospitality, psychology, and sociology literature. Research suggests that prior experience, setting, cultural beliefs, risk perception, knowledge, familiarity, demographics, and type of contact are likely to influence the emotional response of disgust to some type of personal contact with a contaminated surface in one’s environment. That emotional response may influence consumer satisfaction and return or revisit intention or other consumer behaviors.

Because consumers do not have access to microbiological assessments of their environment, they rely on their perceptions of cleanliness and the possibility of environmental contamination. The CREC model may provide a useful integration of several variables that influence their perception to aid in understanding how they affect consumers’ responses.

Today’s consumers appear to be greatly interested in cleanliness in their environment, although research studies suggest that this may not always have been so. Figure 2 shows the historical development of consumer practices from basic washing, to a greater level of cleanliness behaviors, up through the current consumers’ concerns for contamination in the environment. The historical context offers insight into the expanding norms for what is defined as “clean” from (1) the 1700s when infrequent washing of clothes or one’s person was the common practice, to (2) a stronger social mandate for personal cleanliness in the 1800s to 1900s, to (3) today’s consumers who are pushing the need for a clean environmental space, not just at home, but when they dine out, when they travel, and when they stay at hotels.

Figure 2.

History of Cleaning and Future Research Needs With Regard to Consumer Reactions to Contamination in the Physical Environment

Perceptions about what defines “clean” also vary among individual consumers. A better understanding of consumers’ definitions of “clean” can help businesses wash, sanitize, launder, decontaminate, and otherwise cleanse their hospitality operations to better meet consumers’ expectations as well as their own operational standards. In fact, the difference in these two standards is an important aspect in research. Operations are responsible for ensuring that their environments are, in fact, properly cleaned and safe for consumers, in addition to meeting consumers’ expectations or perceptions for cleaning. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration’s Food Code (the federal guidelines for U.S. foodservice inspections) clearly states this dual responsibility in its preface:

It is a shared responsibility of the food industry and the government to ensure that food provided to the consumer is safe and does not become a vehicle in a disease outbreak or in the transmission of communicable disease. This shared responsibility extends to ensuring that consumer expectations are met, and that food is unadulterated, prepared in a clean environment, and honestly presented. (Food and Drug Administration, 2017)

The responsibility for a clean environment is appropriate for restaurants, hotels, and other areas in the travel industry as well other consumer service locations. Clearly, there is a wealth of research waiting to be done in different environments using the CREC model. In addition, research in both microbiological safety and consumer perception will be valuable in ensuring that environmental spaces not only look clean to consumers, they are safe.

Footnotes

Barbara A. Almanza, PhD, RD (e-mail: almanzab@purdue.edu), is a professor in the School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

References

Amblee

(2015). The impact of cleanliness on customer perceptions of security in hostels: A WOM-based approach. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 49, 37-39.

Argo

J. J.

Dahl

D. W.

Morales

A. C.

(2006). Consumer contamination: How consumers react to products touched by others. Journal of Marketing, 70, 81-94.

Boo

H. C.

Ghiselli

Almanza

B. A.

(2000). Consumer perceptions and concerns about the healthfulness and safety of food served at fairs and festivals. Event Management, 6, 85-92.

Bushman

R. L.

Bushman

C. L.

(1988). The early history of cleanliness in America. Journal of American History, 74(4), 1213-1238.

Ceglowski

(2019). The Bedbug Registry. Retrieved from http://bedbugregistry.com/

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). CDC and food safety. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/ucm595139.htm

Crandall

P. G.

Friedly

E. C.

Patton

O’Bryan

C. A.

Gurubaramurugeshan

Seideman

. . . Rainey

(2011). Consumer awareness of and concerns about food safety at three Arkansas farmers’ markets. Food Protection Trends, 31, 156-165.

Dolnicar

(2002). Business travelers’ hotel expectations and disappointments: A different perspective to hotel attribute importance investigation. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 7, 29-35.

Dykstra

(1990), Infection control for lodging and food service establishments New York, NY: Wiley.

10.

Fisher

J. J.

Almanza

B. A.

Behnke

Nelson

D. C.

Neal

(2018). Norovirus on cruise ships: Motivation for handwashing? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 75, 10-17.

11.

Flora

(2008). Cult of clean. Psychology Today, 41(5), 93-99.

12.

Food and Drug Administration. (2017). Food Code 2017. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/ucm595139.htm

13.

Haidt

McCauley

Rozin

(1994). Individual differences insensitivity to disgust: A scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 701-713.

14.

Henson

(1997). Consumer willingness to pay for reductions in the risk of food poisoning in the UK. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 47, 403-420.

15.

Hill

M. J.

(1997). Intestinal flora and endogenous vitamin synthesis. European Journal of Cancer Prevention, 6(Suppl. 1), S43-S45.

16.

Kim.

Almanza

. (2017). Consumer perception of the Food and Drug Administration’s newest recommended food facility inspection format: Words matter. Journal of Environmental Health, 79(10), 20-25.

17.

Kozak

Crotts

J. C.

Law

(2007). The impact of the perception of risk on international travelers. International Journal of Tourism Research, 9, 233-242.

18.

McKelvey

Wong

M. R.

Matis

(2015). Letter grading and transparency promote restaurant food safety in New York City. Journal of Environmental Health, 78, 46-48.

19.

Monterrubio

J. C.

(2010). Short-term economic impacts of influenza A (H1N1) and government reaction on the Mexican tourism industry: An analysis of the media. International Journal of Tourism Policy, 3(1), 1-15.

20.

Park

Almanza

(2018, November). Cleanliness in airplanes. Poster presented at the EuroChrie conference. Dublin, Ireland.

21.

Park

Almanza

(2015). Consumers’ reactions to sanitation in casual dining, quick-service, and fine dining restaurants. Hospitality Review, 31(4), Article 10. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/hospitalityreview/vol31/iss4/10

22.

Park

Almanza

B. A.

Miao

Sydnor

Jang

(2016). Consumer perceptions and emotions about sanitation conditions in full-service restaurants. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 19, 474-487.

23.

Pine

McKercher

(2004). The impact of SARS on Hong Kong’s tourism industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16, 139-143.

24.

Reynolds

S. M.

(2013). The development of a comprehensive disgust scale (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3567818)

25.

Rozin

Haidt

McCauley

(2016). Disgust. In Feldman Barrett

Lewis

Haviland

J. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 815-834). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

26.

Rozin

Millman

(1987). Family environment, not heredity, accounts for family resemblances in food preferences and attitudes: A twin study. Appetite, 8, 125-134.

27.

Schaller

(2014). When and how disgust is and is not implicated in the behavioral immune system. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 8, 251-256.

28.

Ryan

Oaten

Stevenson

R. J.

Case

T. I.

(2012). Facial disfigurement is treated like an infectious disease. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 639-646.

29.

Schroeder

Pennington-Gray

Mandala

(2018). Examining international food travelers’ engagement in behaviors to protect themselves from foodborne illnesses while abroad. Tourism Review International, 22, 213-227.

30.

Stringam

B. B.

Gerdes

Jr. (2010). An analysis of word-of-mouth ratings and guest comments of online hotel distribution sites. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 19, 773-796.

31.

Truong

Nisar

Knox

Prabhakar

(2017). The influence of cleanliness and employee attributes on perceived service quality in restaurants in a developing country. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 11, 608-627.

32.

Viar-Paxton

Olatunji

B. O.

(2016). Measurement of disgust proneness. In Meiselman

H. L.

(Ed.), Emotion measurement (pp. 513-535). New York, NY: Elsevier.

33.

Vilnai-Yavetz

Gilboa

(2010). The effect of servicescape cleanliness on customer reactions. Services Marketing Quarterly, 31, 213-234.

34.

Gibson

K. E.

Wright

K. G.

Neal

J. A.

Sirsat

S. A.

(2017). Food safety and food quality perceptions of farmers’ market consumers in the United States. Food Control, 79, 266-271.

35.

Neal

J. A.

Sirsat

S. A.

(2018). Consumers’ food safety risk perceptions and willingness to pay for fresh-cut produce with lower risk of foodborne illness. Food Control, 86, 83-89.

36.

Zemke

D. M. V.

Neal

Shoemaker

Kirsch

(2015). Hotel cleanliness: will guests pay for enhanced disinfection? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27, 690-710.